The NY Post ran a story yesterday about the city's response to vicious dogs. A Bensonhurst boy shown here was mauled last year by a pit bull and a man from Staten Island died in a dog attack. Of course, I feel sorry for both but I hate these sensationalistic stories. No one, including myself, would argue that this boy's case isn't tragic and that the dog shouldn't be put down. He bit a five-year-old previously, was being walked off leash (something I see a lot in my neighborhood and that never ceases to annoy me), and had an owner who refused to take it to behavior therapy. I even agree with City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. who said in the story that the dangerous-dog advisory board that is supposed to meet every four months but doesn't should get its act together.
But what's really disappointing is that the article doesn't put this all in context. For example, dog bites are acutally down from 1998, when there were 6,568 to last year when there were 3,537. In addition, I fully understand that if my child were attacked, I would want the dog to be put down as soon as possible, but some due process has to take place. Otherwise, anyone could claim they were bitten by a dog they didn't like and have it put down. Finally, of course, the article has to mention pit bulls several times. As if they are the only breed that ever bites anyone and as if every pit bull is a killer.
I do think that dangerous dog laws should be better enforced.
I was attacked by a dog last year =\
regards,
Jackson Asasia
Posted by: Jackson Asasia | December 27, 2009 at 06:30 AM